Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> The piece that is missing is easy access to marked-up semantics. For example,
> the fact that something has been marked as an address, or a chapter title, or
> a summary or abstract. There may be no equivalence, there is just information
> that can be used.
"Easy access to marked-up semantics" is the rest of the guidelines,
in my opinion. I don't think that should be a checkpoint on its own.
- Ian
> All data is data, but some data as expressed is intended to be meaningful to
> the reader (the role of an element, the content of an alternative, etc) and
> some is intended to be processable by a machine (the URI from which an
> equivalent can be fetched, the RDF property that signifies a role according
> to a machine-interpreted scheme, etc.)
>
> cheers
>
> Charles McCN
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
> Al Gilman wrote:
> >
> > At 10:18 PM 2000-04-25 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > > Proposal:
> > >
> > > 1) Leave 2.1 checkpoint text the same.
> > > ("Make available all content, including equivalent
> > > alternatives for content.")
> > > 2) Require that for content known by specification to
> > > be for users (including information in style sheets),
> > > that a document source view does not suffice.
> >
> [snip]
> > "What is for display" is view-specific. Not document-information-generic.
> >
> > "What is for the user" is not a valid concept in the Universal Access
> > architecture. It is a residue of "view chauvenism;" someone's assumption
> > as to what view the user is using. All the properties are informative, and
> > may be exposed in the over-the-wire encoding as text or (where available)
> > in a friendlier transform of that encoding.
>
> Similarly, in another email [1] you write:
>
> "There is no fundamental semantic difference between what is
> called data vs. metadata. They both play the same role as
> bearers of information Semantically, it is all just
> one class of data. This is a little-understood fact of
> information science."
>
> I think that we should focus on one particular view of
> the data: the author's view of what pieces of content are
> equivalent. The author marks up these pieces in a way that
> allows user agents to recognize the pieces as equivalent. I think
> the Working Group wants those equivalents to be easily
> interchangeable or reachable in the same view.
>
> Proposal (both P1):
>
> 2.1.a Provide easy access to all equivalents.
>
> The equivalents could be rendered in the same viewport, through
> tool tips, by querying selected elements for attribute values,
> etc. A document source view would not meet this requirement since
> it would not be easy for most users. I don't think that it should
> be a requirement that all equivalents be rendered in the same
> viewport since that may not help some users, and some users may
> want more than one of the equivalents rendered at a given moment.
> Again, it's understood here that an "equivalent" is one that
> the user agent can recognize. It's also understood that this
> means "access through the UI" (which will be stated elsewhere).
>
> 2.1.b Provide access to all content.
>
> A document source view would meet this requirement, though
> a structured navigation view would be better. All content
> need not be available in one view (though that's the easiest to
> do). All content need not be available in every view.
>
> Am I missing any important pieces?
>
> - Ian
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0210.html
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel: +1 831 457-2842
> Cell: +1 917 450-8783
>
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783